Kukla's Korner Hockey

If you want to get Eric Lindros wound up, ask him about the NHL lockout, which has not-so-quietly extended into a third month — with no negotiations scheduled and no real end in sight.

The retired NHLer and former NHLPA ombudsman wasn’t overly optimistic when asked to give his opinion during a break in the action at the Mike Keane Celebrity Hockey Classic on Thursday afternoon.

“Mine is going to differ from someone on the owner’s side, that’s for sure,” said Lindros, who retired in November of 2007 following a career that was cut short by injuries. “There’s nothing the players are getting out of this (prospective) agreement. They’re giving. It’s just how much are they going to give. I’m a bit frustrated with it.”

read on to hear more from Lindros plus Wendel Clark, Curtis Joseph and Paul Coffey have an opinion too...

Comments

“The players are willing to go to 50% (of hockey related revenues), but they want their contracts honoured,” Lindros said. “If someone signs a deal, stick with the deal. I don’t think that’s too much to ask.

Every owner in the Leauge knew what the Garden Gnome was going to do when September came around. But they went out and signed huge deals nonetheless. I guess that’s easier to do when you know you won’t have to honor them. Any settlement that negates a deal that was signed on July 1, 2012 or later is fraud. There’s no other way to describe it,

Curtis Joseph said…“I’m a fan now and I want to see some hockey.

No offense, Curtis, but a lot of us thought you were no more than a “fan” when you wore the Winged Wheel.

Paul Coffey… “As a former player, I suspect there’s a deal to be had out there. The best thing to do is to take (Gary) Bettman and (Donald) Fehr out of the room and let the other guys decide.

I don’t know about taking Fehr out, but if the owners removed the Garden Gnome I have a feeling a deal could be struck within days. But the players (and the majority of the fans) hate that little prick so much nothing is going to get settled unless the players bend over and let his tinyness get what he really wants – a big “release” from showing the world that he isn’t the insignificant little P.O.S. that everyone knows he is.

Any settlement that negates a deal that was signed on July 1, 2012 or later is fraud. There’s no other way to describe it,

“This SPC is entered into subject to the CBA between the NHL and NHLPA and any provisions of this SPC inconsistent with such CBA are superseded by the provisions of the CBA.”

That is included in every SPC signed by every player who ever plays in the NHL.

CBA > SPC. Each and every player signed an agreement to that effect. Why are the portions of SPCs that determine compensation sacrosanct while the portion of SPCs that says they can be modified by future CBAs is not?

Same contract. Same weight to the terms and provisions therein.

I don’t know about taking Fehr out, but if the owners removed the Garden Gnome I have a feeling a deal could be struck within days.

I don’t. Daly’s the #2 guy and he doesn’t exactly sound thrilled with the NHLPA either.

Look, we went through this exact thing already. We know the season is gone, pretty much. It’s going to take the NHLPA a full year without any but a very few of them (who signed big deals with signing bonuses) to wake up to what’s going on here.

A position where the big ‘concession’ is simply slowing the rate at which you make more money isn’t really much of a concession, and that’s literally the only thing the NHLPA has even moved an inch on.

A position where the big ‘concession’ is simply slowing the rate at which you make more money isn’t really much of a concession, and that’s literally the only thing the NHLPA has even moved an inch on.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 11/16/12 at 04:37 AM ET

How can you keep saying this and actually believe it?

1. Even if what you are saying were true, it still fits the definition of being a concession. The point here is, why is it all of a sudden the responsibility of the players to concede something, especially when the baseline they would be conceding something from was a baseline hand-crafted by the owners? It’s silly.

The owners screwed up in their last CBA and yet again, they want the players to give a bunch of things up to correct it. Any proposal that will likely have the teeth to get something done will be one where the players are conceding a bunch, and the owners are conceding nothing. The things we can legitimately call “concessions” have to be measured against the current baseline, which would be the CBA that just expired. This means it is not a concession for the NHL to agree to honor existing contracts.

2. What you’re saying isn’t entirely true. The three proposals the PA brought forth in mid-October we designed so that in the short-term, players would be able to maintain the majority or all of the money owned to them on contracts they have already signed. This is where your statement is kinda-sorta true. But in the medium-term, those same proposals were designed to decrease the players’ share to 50%. In any of these cases, the players are conceding something pretty substantial.

Again, consider that the baseline from which a concession is defined would be the just-expired CBA. With that view, and the context that the owners got what they wanted in that CBA (whoops!), all three of those proposals are pretty significant concessions.

If the NHL wants more concessions from the PA on the revenue splits, or contracting rights, then it is time for the NHL to offer some TRUE concessions of their own, relative to the baseline of the just-expired CBA. Not some faux-concessions that are only concessions compared to a previous offer.